tv Charlie Rose PBS September 29, 2010 12:00am-1:00am EDT
we need to quit threatening them with attack because if there are moderates-- quote-- in the leadership of iran, say the religious leaders, who are equivocal about whether to go nuclear or not, i think the thing that would make them go nuclear is for us to continue to threaten to attack them even with nuclear weapons, either us or the israelis and not communicate with them. so i would communicate with them and stop threatening them. jup we conclude with the new movie about facebook. it's called "president social network, we have the director david fincher and the screen writer aaron sorkin. >> you never want to present a carkner a movie that you don't empathize with. it was not a character assassination. we were... we had a guy who from certain perspectives he was a judas and he had betrayed his
friend. obviously that's a specific point of view. >> at the sender is a very modern invention but the story is as old as story telling itself, of friendship and loyalty and betrayal and power and class and things that shakespeare would have written about and it's lucky for me that none of these guys were available so i got to write about it. >> rose: jimmy carter, aaron sorkin and david fincher when we continue. words alone aren't enough. workers who lost their jobs and to the spill.help i'm iris cross. we'll keep restoring the jobs, tourist beaches, and businesses impacted by the spill. we've paid over $400 million in claims and set up a $20 billion independently-run claims fund. i was born in new orleans. my family still lives here. i'm gonna be here until we make this right.
captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: president jimmy carter is here. he was president of the united states from 1977 to 1981. his administration faced a struggling economy and energy crisis and the capture of american hostages in iran. one of his signature achievements was brokering a peace agreement between israel and egypt known as the camp david accords. since leaving office, he's become a force for human rights around the world. he won the nobel peace prize in 2002. he recently reflected on his presidency in an interview with "60 minutes." >> we went through four years. we never fired a bullet. we never dropped a bomb.
we never launched a missile. i i because of your religious views? >> that's part of it. because i felt our country should be as a superpower the champion of peace. >> and some people will criticize that, have criticized that attitude as saying that in jimmy carter's time we didn't look as strong. didn't look like a superpower. >> there's no doubt that usually a president's public image is enhanced by going to war. that never did appeal to me. >> carter argues that despite the image of failure, he actually had a long list of successes, starting with bringing all the hostages home alive. he normalized relations with china, brokered a peace treaty between israel and just a minute deregulated railroads, trucking, airlines, and telephones, and his energy conservation programs resulted in a 50% cut in imported oil down to just 4.3 million barrels a day. >> unfortunately, now we're
probably importing 12 million barrels a day since part of my energy policies were abandoned. >> rose: he's just written his 25th book. it's called "white house diary." it's a collection of entries from a diary he kept as president. i am pleased, as always, to have him back at this table. welcome. >> rose: good to be back with you, charlie. thank you. "to the memory of my chief of staff, hamilton jordon, and my press secretary jodi powell." who would have ever believed... >> rose: i know. >>. >> rose: ever believed. >> i know. they were just like my own sons. about the age of my oldest sons and they were the ones that were the cause of my being elected governor, serving as governor, being elected president, serving as president. outstanding young men who just passed away prematurely. it's a great loss to me, i think to the country. >> rose: what comes out of this selection that i chose from leslie's conversation is it will notion of what you accomplished.
the yet in some places it's considered a failed presidency. why is that? >> i think the failed presidency comes from the fact that i wasn't reelected. that's the kind of crucial measure of whether you have a success or snot whether you are chosen for a second term or not. and i never have felt discouraged or disappointed when i look back at those four years of excitement and challenge and many successes, some failures. so i feel at ease with what we did. and i think the significant thing about this book is it's absolutely point blank honest and unadorned, exactly the way i wrote it 30 years ago. >> rose: you just came back from north korea. >> yes. >> rose: and you believe there's a possibility, you have said? >> i don't have any doubt about it that they want to go to a
complete agreement with the united states and with south korea and have a permanent peace treaty to replace the still state of war that's now in a cease-fire stage. and that they want to denuclearize the peninsula. i don't have any doubt about that. >> rose: so why are you so convinced? >> because i negotiated this same agreement identically 16 years ago in june of 1994. and it was completely confirmed in every aspect by the clinton administration with good faith talks with the north koreans in again neva with bob gluch chi, who was assistant secretary of state. then it was thrown in the waste basket by george w. bush in 2002. later, though, under bush, in 2005, they recommitted themselves to the same principles. and i think that they now... they call me to come over to north korea to pick upage lon gomes, they wouldn't let him go to anyone except me, which showed they wanted me to come,
and when i got there, they delayed his release for 36 hours so that i'd have plenty of time to talk to their top leader. >> rose: in a case like this, do you say "i won't come unless you promise me you're going to release him?" >> that's right. and they promised me... when i first got the invitation it was the 21st day of july and they said "come over here, meet with kim jong il and we will release gomes to you and no one else." so i note pied the white house about that. and it was five weeks later that i finally got there. and in the meantime, i was informed by the north koreans that kim jong il would no longer be available. so i knew that before i left. i didn't know until i got over there that he was in china. but he waited for me for three or four weeks and he couldn't stay. so i still had long sessions with the head of state of north korea who is a president of the pro sid yum. the president of the parliament. and also with the deputy foreign
minister who's the only negotiator they've ever had at the six party talks. and both men were with me when i negotiated the first agreement with king il song. >> rose: the father of. >> the father of. so i brought those messages to the white house and the state department and i hope that they'll follow up on them now and see whether north korea's telling the truth or not. i believe they are. >> rose: do you expect the u.s. government will follow up? >> i don't know. >> rose: why do you doubt? >> i went to china the following week, a long-scheduled trip. and while i was there the american envoy to the six party talks announced that he was visiting with the leaders of japan and china and south korea but he made an ostentatious remark that he was not meeting with the north koreans. so we need to meet with them and discuss with them and see what they will or won't do. >> rose: they're prepared to give up their new jersey leer... >> absolutely. >> rose: and what happens if they don't?
what happens to their economy? what happens to their people? >> i think their people will continue to suffer under the most severe sanctions that we can impose on any country. and we've tightened up on those sanctions quite often and twice since president obama's been in office. >> rose: they were suffering before sanctions? >> they were suffering before sanctions and i think to learn how to improve their economy after 1979 and they know they are in trouble as an isolated nation in international commerce and trade and other things and i think they want to reconstitute their position in a better way. >> rose: what does it say? that it's good to have nuclear weapons because if you have nuclear weapons you'll get the attention of the united states? >> well, they got the attention of the united states 16 years ago when they were getting to reprocess their rods in into plutonium. that's why i went over there at that time. now since george bush abandoned the agreement that clinton had worked out then they started
reprocessing those same nuclear fuel rods and have enough to have maybe six explosions. so i think they're willing to give that up in order to be accepted. >> rose: if they are, why haven't they done it? >> i think the reason they haven't done it yet is because they haven't reached an agreement with the other parties: they have indicated... i think that's why they reached out to me. and while i was there in pyongyang, kim jong il was in his long-awaited planned trip to china, when i went to china five days later the leaders of china told me that kim jong il delivered to them exactly same message. >> rose: what should the united states give up? >> i don't think we have to give up anything. i think the complete denuclearization of a peninsula, complete observation by the international nuclear... >> but they fear an attack for
some reason, don't they? >> they do. well, we threaten to attack them. those threats have been made repeatedly and just a few months ago the united states issued a list of nations that would be immune to nuclear attack and they ostentatiously left north korea off the list which makes a big impression in pyongyang and that didn't make much of an impression on the charlie rose show but they noticed very carefully we had no longer... >> rose: we're not immune. >> they were no longer immune. >> rose: is russia immune? >> no, russia has always been on our potential targeted list since they are nuclear power. >> rose: and snern >> certain no longer immune. no, i'm sure that ahmadinejad may have mentioned that to you. but iran and north korea have now been included in effect in countries which the united states would bear right to attack with nuclear weapons. >> i want to ask this as simply as i know how to. >> (laughs)
i'll try to give you a simple answer, thank you. >> rose: do you believe that the president would give you the responsibility that you could find and get a peace agreement between the israelis and the palestinians? >> i doubt it. i don't think so. i believe the best person right now to handle that responsibility is hillary clinton. >> rose: because? >> because she's tough, competent, and she nose the background. she's determined. and she doesn't have the scars of my past negotiating experience. >> rose: and also do you think the israelis look upon you with... >> with some skepticism. >> rose: skepticism. >> rose: at a minimum. >> i've had very serious confrontations with netanyahu who accused me of betraying israel's rights when i negotiated the peace treaty between israel and egypt. he very blatantly said i gave away the sinai desert which should have been retained by israel which included three small oil wells and so forth.
so he has never acknowledged that the peace treaty with egypt that i negotiated was a positive factor for israel. >> rose: it's hard to imagine that menachem begin would give up anything that's not in israel's interest. >> what menachem begin was the west bank. they never wanted sinai, they never wanted gaza, they want the west bank. >> rose: you still think they want the west bank or want parts of the west bank? >> they control 60% of it now. >> rose: what would be the agreement that you would make? >> the same thing as the official policy of the united states and international... >> rose: and the united nations. >> and the arab world. >> rose: the initiative from saudi arabia? >> yes. >> rose: so everybody know bhas what it's going to be? >> that israel would withdraw to the pre-'67 borders with some modifications negotiated, maybe swap 2% of the land to the palestinians. >> rose: trade land here for there in order to give them settlements around the jerusalem. >> and one thing that i would
don't that the arab leaders have demanded is the right of palestinians to return to israel. ill think the right of return ought just to apply to palestinians coming back into palestine. >> rose: so they couldn't go into quarters now, but they want to go back into... >> except in special cases where the israeli government approves. >> rose: would the palestinian government... do you think yasser arafat would have accepted that? >> i think arafat probably would have accepted it. >> rose: behe had a chance to at camp david with bill clinton? >> no he didn't either. because that was a proposal that bill clinton and the israelis worked out in advance and tried to send it to arafat and it had one fatal defect in it and that was the jordan river valley which compromises about 20% of the west bank command, if given up, would preclude the palestinians having a viable nation. >> rose: they would have taken the taba agreement, though, would they not? >> i think so, yeah. >> rose: but it was too late. >> that was the same as the so-called geneva initiative.
>> rose: so do you believe this is going to >> i have to pray that we will and i have to be an optimist even though sometimes i can't justify right my my optimism. >> rose: (laughs) that's pessimism if you can't justify your optimism. so so what should the initiative of the obama administration be? >> i think to let this negotiation go as far as it will and i would like that see the obama administration along with the other quartet members say this is a proposal that we think is fair to israel and the palestinians. >> suppose we demand it, netanyahu is going to deal with his coalition. what would you do to force the coalition? >> one is to force the united nations to recognize palestine as a nation. and that's been proposed by many of the european leaders, including the past foreign minister. >> rose: with what boundaries? >> with unspecified boundaries.
with boundaries to be negotiated. >> rose: so we say here's... we recognize them as a state, there it is, they've got statehood. >> that's right. >> rose: and they've got a president and they've got a prime minister and they're going to elect another one. >> that's right. >> rose: and they're beginning to have some kind of self-government under prime minister phi i can't tell. >> and i would guess within a fewçó months they would have 13ó orçó 140 nations that would recognize the nation of palestine and then that would be a major step forward because you would see... i think you would see very quickly that two palestinian factions come together and they would have another election, the fourth election. i have personally monitored the first three elections. >> rose: right, i know you have. >> the carter center has. and i think the first three would come together. >> i want to come back to camp david, your camp david. >> yes. >> rose: i was alive at that time. >> (laughs) that's hard to believe. you're that old.
(laughs) >> rose: it was not politically smart for you to do this. >> no, it wasn't. >> rose: there was a majority opinion that said jimmy carter cannot pull this up. he can go up to camp david but he's got anwar sadat, menachem begin and this is really stupid in terms of his political future. >> that's true. and a lot of my own advisors felt the same way. >> rose: where was brzezinski? >> he was for me. >> rose: he agreed with you? >> yes. >> rose: and the key to it was what other than your own stubbornness and tenacity? >> well, i would say the key to it was sadat's generosity. sadat told me in advance my good friend jimmy, he always called me, anything you want i will agree to it, with two provisions. one that provisions be made for the palestinians to determine their own future. and secondly for all israelis to get out of egypt. that is the sinai dest. so i had great negotiating
flexibility. >> rose: and assad would have bought into that if, in fact, you're gettingñr out of the goln heights.ñrñr >> sure, i think so. >> rose: and jordan would have bought into it if you go back... >> ió think that made it possie forth coming than prime minister begin was.ñi he he was the last and most rekals trant member of the israeli delegation and he finally agreed to remove the settlement from the sinai, which was egyptian territory. only if he didn't have anything to do with it. that would be a decision to made by the knesset without him.my because he had taken anñi oath befor god thatçó he wouldñi nevr dismantle an israeli settlement. so he didn't wantñiñ own oath. so that was the last breaking point. >> rose: and the long history is being an original member of the... i guess it was the... so hereñr is calñi lid michelle whu
know. i want you to listen to whatñr e said and tell me how you interpret it. >> ( translated ): how dhf this conflict emerge in the firstçó place? israel started by the occupation so that this is a reaction. i mean, you know that every action generates a reaction. the action is the occupation and the reaction from the palestinians is that... so when the occupation comes to an end, the resistance will end. >> i have met with him a number of times. >> rose: i know. that's why i'm asking you. >> what he has told me and what he announced to al jazeera, to confirm it with the arab audience was that he would accept any negotiation accepted by mahmoud abbas... >> rose: the head of the palestinian authority. >> that's right. provided the palestinians could vote on it in a referendum. and if the palestinians approved
it, he would accept it. and he's made it clear he would accept israel's right to exist, to live in peace alongside a palestinian state within the pre-'67 borders. he never has agreed with what i said a few minutes ago about right of return. and neither has mahmoud abbas. that is, that palestinians should have a right to return only to palestine and not flood israel, which i think is a non-starter. >> rose: that was a big hangup for yasser arafat, too. >> i think in a showdown they would accept that premise on restraint on palestinian right of return not to israel but to palestine. >> rose: so what do you think we ought to do about iran? >> well5n i think we need to kp pressure on iranñi"r we need to open up communication with them in every way possible. we need to quit threatening them with attack because if they are moderate-- quote-- in the leadership of iran, say the religious leaders who are equivocal about whether to go
nuclear or not, i think the thing that would make them go nuclear is for us to continue to threaten to attack them even with nuclear weapons either ustor israelis and not communicate with them. so i would communicate with them and stop threatening them. >> rose: i know people-- serious responsible people-- who have said to me over theñi years jimy carter would have been president reelected president if he had saidñr to the iranians "you will release our hostages or we're going to bomb you. and we don't care, we're going to level tehran and we don't care about the consequences because you are holding ourñr hostages and if you don't, you're going to be a fireball." was that ever an option? >> we me? >> rose: yes. >> no. because i knew and i think if you look at it just a few minutes you would see if we bombed iran the hostages would all be dead. >> rose: but the assumption that this person said to me was that you would be saying they are serving the country, i have made a decision that their lives,
while valuable to all of us, cannot be held hostage to... >> i could don't that. i wouldn't have done it. >> rose: you wouldn't do it because of religious principle][ >> no, primarilyñi because of te hostages' death that was inevitable if i had attacked iran. many in my bo)xmmm,p wartime... >> let me explain. in my book, in november, we sent a message to homeini through me and the british and the germans and the french. "if you put a hostage on trial" which he had threatened to do-- "we will close all access between iran and the outside world with a blockade and with mining all your harbors and we will not let your airplanes fly. if you injure or kill a hostage, we will attack you with military force." he never put a hostage on trial, he never injured a hostage. but two threaten that he had to release them or either i would attack iran was something that i was not prepared to do because
of what i just said because if i had made a promise if you don't release them by, say, december 15, i'm going to bomb iran. if i had said that-- which i think would have been stupid-- then december 15 came i would have had to bomb iran. i couldn't go back on my threat. >> rose: right. >> at the time i started bombing iran, immediately my hostages would have all been assassinated and that was something i was not willing to face. >> rose: you've had a long time to think about this. >> yeah, i had a long time then! i mean i had many days to think about it. >> rose: is there anything you wish you'd done differently? >> yeah. we had a well-planned rescue operation that required six helicopters to bring all of our rescue teams and the hostages out. we had to have six helicopters and all of us agreed ahead of time the strike force and i and harold brown, our secretary defense and all of them that if
we didn't have six helicopters it couldn't go through. so we sent in eight helicopters to make sure we had enough to do it. one with unexplained reasons turned around and went back and landed. another went down in a very heavy sand storm. they had 600 miles to go. and another one went down with a hydraulic leak and crashed. >> rose: so you had five left. >> i had five left. so we had to withdraw. and if i had sent one more helicopter, say nine instead of eight, the hostages would have been home and i would have been reelected and the hostages would have been free earlier. so a lot of people... students and everybody ask me that and i always say i would have sent one more helicopter. >> rose: you're tough on... in your diary on the late senator ted kennedy. >> yeah, well let me... i'm not excusing it because this is what i wrote 31 years ago.
when he and i and all of the other five chairman of committees in the house and senate that controlled health care collectively drafted a comprehensive health program, at the last minute-- in i think june of '72-- president kennedy withdrew his support and he was powerful enough to kill it. >> rose: senator kennedy? >> senator kennedy. excuse me. and you have to remember that was the time when he and i were in an intense campaign against each other because he was trying to knock me off as president and become president himself. so we were political antagonists and so he had either one of two reasons for killing a comprehensive health bill. someone he wanted to do it so i wouldn't have a victory that might be politically advantageous and the other one, which i'll give him the threat, that he saw himself as a soon to be president and under him he would have a health bill that would be more suitable to his
own preference. >> rose: and how different is the health bill you wanted from the one that president obama got? is. >> rose: much more all inclusive it had totally financeed catastrophic health coverage for everybody. in other words, everybody that had an income and the health costs exceeded the certain portion of income, the government would pay it, secondly it had complete coverage for women and children one year old . >> rose: did the president, obama, make a mistake in going for too much? >> no, i don't think so. in retrospect... i haven't talked to him about it but my guess is that he wishes now that at the beginning he had concentrated on jobs. >> rose: jobs. jobs.
>> jobs, jobs, jobs as everybgdn saidñi and let that be preeminet in everybody's mind everyday these first 18 months of his term. >> rose: so he did try to do too much. >> i don't think he tried to do too much. >> rose: well, he did if you say he should have concentrated on jobs, joshs, jobs. >> that doesn't mean you can't do other things. but he was concentrating verbally and everything else on the health bill which i'm glad it passed. the other thing that i think he tried to do excessively-- and this is no criticism of him-- is he tried to get two or three republican votes. and he underestimated the polarization of the political situation in washington because the republicans froze themselves almost unanimously with very few exceptions into zero votes in the house and one or two votes at the most in the senate. so i think that he gave away a lot in order to try to get a few more republican votes and it didn't work out. >> rose: in other words, he gave up too much in order to get those two votes.
>> i'm not criticizing because he was doing the best he could under the circumstances. >> rose: how historic do you consider the legislation? >> it depends. you know, it doesn't go into effect for most people until 2014. so we've got four more years to wait until we have the universal coverage, so called. so i think if all that goes into effect it will be profoundly important just like medicaid and medicare was. >> rose: what did you write down on these notes that you did not put in this book because it was too explosive, too what? where did you edit? >> i ed ted not because of the sensitivity of something that might be embarrassing to me. not a single sentence is changed. sometimes i made a sentence more clear and put in explanatory remarks. but after a year... when the paper back comes out i'm going to make everything available in
my presidential library. so any scholar, any news reporter, any skeptic about possible distortions or omissions, selfish omissions cheer go and satisfy themselves. i have nothing in the book to hide from. i don't have anything in there that's a secret about my own family affairs, that i would want to hide. >> rose: there was a perception which you speak to in some of your advisors spoke to that you were perceived as weak. yes? >> yeah, there was a perception. and there's a lot of news makers that thought that i was weak and because we avoided conflict and i think the main reason that image came forward because because of what we already discussed on your program tonight and that's why didn't i bomb snern i could have destroyed iran with impunity. they couldn't have hurt us. i could have completely destroyed iran if i wanted to, if i gave the order. >> rose: when you look back,
you're proudest of what have? >> i think generically speaking i'm proudest of the human rights policy. because of a profound impacted the all over the world, particularly in this hemisphere. you have to remember that when i became president, almost all of the south american countries were military dictatorships and we intruded in a beneficent way, i believe, in their internal affairs to promote human rights. and before i became president, all presidents, democrats and republican, were in bed with dictators because of two or three reasons. one is most of those latin american dictators graduated from annapolis or west point. they were fluent in english. and they had worked out very lucrative business agreements with the corporations in america. and because they got a monopoly, in effect, on bananas and pineapple and on sync and iron other. and whenever there was any
disturbance in those countries from indigenous indians or liberals or poor people, then the united states took the position these are communists and we're going to keep them from challenging our dictator different. and that's the way it was. and so sometimes we would even send marines and army in there to protect our dictator friends. i didn't like that idea so we changed that and within a couple years after i left the white house, every country in south america was a democracy. >> rose: and also a commitment of human rights is what you have made a kind of mission in your post-presidential leadership. >> well, all my life. as governor and civil rights and human rights around the world, yes. so you asked me what i thought. generically i think that was the most important. >> rose: and the biggest mistake? because you write in here that you tell us how you saw everything, including the mistakes. >> well, i made mistakes but let me say one other thing in answer to the first question. i think the thing that has
affected international commerce and trade and politics most was my normalizing diplomatic relations with china. in the first of january '72. and three days after deng xiaoping and i announced normalization, that was the 15th of december, that same week he announced reform and openness which changed the whole structure and culture of the people's republic of china. now china is almost universal in their influence and they've changed almost everything going on in china. that was very important. well, you know, my most serious political mistake was not becoming the trusted and supported leader of a democratic party. you know, i ran as an outsider. i ran almost like the same environment that has precipitated the tea party movement. because americans were
discouraged and embarrassed about things that were going on in our country and our government. i came in right after watergate, right after we lost in vietnam and we told a lot of lies about what was going on in vietnam. i came in right after john kennedy and robert kennedy were assassinated, martin luther king was assassinated. you may remember the church committee that revealed... >> rose: c.i.a.. >> the c.i.a. and the presidents had ordered and carried out murders in order to get rid of liberal leaders in iran and in chile and so forth. so that was the thing that caused some problems. and so i've capitalized on that as the only outsider running-- except george wallace, and i beat george wallace in florida. so i capitalize on the displeasure of the american people with our incumbent government which is very parallel to what the tea party is doing now. >> rose: i remember you said you
want to give them a government as honest as the people. >> that's right. >> rose: what do you think about the tea party? >> i think it's genuine movement. i kind of equate myself with it earlier. >> rose: you're admiring... >> no. there's some negative aspects of the tea party movement and it's because it's heavily affected by the republican party. i think it's going to be a very powerful factor in the midterm elections in november. i think they're going to prevail to a surprising degree with their candidates. and i think after that they're going to be... they and the republican party are going to absorb each other and i would guess tea party movement will be much less a factor in 2012 and will eventually over three or four years distate completely. >> rose: but so far how would you grade president obama? >> i think he's done well under the most difficult circumstances that a president has ever faced. i don't believe that there's ever been a president even including abraham lincoln during the leadup to the war between the states that has been faced
with such a negative congress. who tried to block almost everything he did with a very strong and determined minority that might become a majority-- i hope not-- after this next election. >> rose: "white house diary" jimmy carter. a diary he kept during his four years as president. thank you for coming as always. >> i always enjoy being with you. >> rose: facebook was founded in 2003 by a 19-year-old harvard student named mark zuckerberg. the company has since grown into a global phenomenon with 500 million users and an estimated value of $25 billion. the invention of facebook has already been the subject of countless articles, several best-selling books and two major lawsuits. it's now a major motion picture. it's called "the social network" and here is the trailer. >> here you go. >> wait! >> rose: how do you do this thing where you manage to get
all girls to hate us? >> i think i've come up with something. >> that looks really good. >> welcome to facebook. >> hi girls, >> hello. >> a million dollars isn't cool? what know what's cool? a billion dollars? >> you made facebook? >> this is our time. "the social network. >> rose: joining me now is the director david fincher. his previous films include fight club, zodiac and the curious case of benjamin button for which he earned an oscar nomination. also here screen writer aaron sorkin. his writing credits include the west wing, sports night and studio 60 on the sunset strip. i'm pleased to have both of them back at this this table welcome. congratulations is it surprising the two of you are working together on this? >> at first glance it's an unusual marriage of director and material david is most known for being peerless as a visual director and i write people
talking in rooms. >> rose: (laughs) there's any question. >> i feel it's an oscar thing. >> rose: exactly. >> but that reaped great rewards because first of all david completely embraced the fact that this was going to be a story told with language but hi brought his distinct visual style and artistry to the movie as well as being able to get great performances out of a group of veryal lnted but very young actors and then finally in the editing room his cutting style. there are moments in the movie of hacking and david makes them look like a bank robbery. >> rose: well, it is kind of like a bank robbery. (laughs) when you were asked to do this, i guess skood rudin did it? >> i got a call from scott and amy pascal and they said "we have a script that's so good it doesn't even require anybody of any ability at all." >> rose: so we're coming to you.
>> so i was like, yeah. >> rose: so did you say yes after 15 minutes of looking at the script? >> i read the thing all the way through but shortly thereafter, five, ten seconds afterwards... >> rose: a movie about facebook? >> that's what i said. that was my biggest fear was it was something i didn't really know anything about. i didn't know the story behind it and i was unsure of how dramatic it could be and my questions were answered in the first 20 or 30 pages. >> rose: and the thing is it's not a movie about facebook. at the center of this is a very, very modern invention but the themes in it are... and the story is oldest story telling itself of friendship and loyalty and betrayal and power and class and these things that shakespeare would have written about and it was lucky for me none of those guys were available so i got to write about it. >> rose: so your challenge was to take these relationships and these lawsuits and animosities and all of that among very young
people and create the... >> well, the first challenge was the... after you look at all the available research and then all the legal documents and after... i did a lot of first-person research, talking to a number of the people who were characters in the movie. >> rose: including zuckerberg? >> no. we made an aggressive attempt to get mark to help us and get facebook to help us and after deliberating for a long time, mark did exactly what i would have done, which was pass. but we did tell him that whether they cooperated or not, we were going to show them the script and we would love to hear their notes. so we did do that and they gave us notes that had mostly to do with hacking. i mean the terminology for hacking. >> rose: so they accepted the idea this is a movie and there is... >> what you have to since there were... i said in your intro there were two lawsuits brought against facebook at roughly the
same time. the defendant, the plaintiffs, the witnesses, they all came into the deposition rooms, they all swore out an oath and we ended up with three very different and often conflicting versions of the story. so what i did was instead of pick one and decide that sounds like the truth to me, i'll run with that, or pick one and decide that sounds like the sexiest to me, i'll run with that, i really liked that there were three conflicting versions of the story. >> rose: so in the end, this is a movie, this is not the story of the founding of facebook. it's a movie in which there are various people who saw what happened differently and you reflected that difference? >> those stories are set against the backdrop of the founding of facebook. i don't think it belongs to any genre, frankly. but the closest one-- and david and i my disagree on this-- i think closest one it belongs to is a courtroom drama where at the beginning we're certain of someone's guilt or innocence and then we change our mind five times before the end of the movie. there will not be a consensus in the audience about who's good
and who's bad and who's right and who's wrong. those arguments low pressure l happen in the parking lot. >> rose: tell me about mark zuckerberg that you have captured here. and tell me act the actor who playsñi him. well, again, we didn'tñr have access to mark zuckerberg. we had access to some yup clips. >> rose: there's video. >> yeah, we were able to look at those. but the two things are hard to... a little hard to reconcile because obviously mark zuckerberg the character in this movie has words put in his mouth by sorkin. >> rose: wouldn't we all like that? >> exactly. but it was a... that was a very difficult thing to reconcile because you're talking about a guy who on "60 minutes" moves very slowly and cautiously in terms of how he speaks and answers questions and obviously the script that was written was 162 pages. >> rose: so the guy we saw on "60 minutes" is not the guy we see in your script? in terms of rapidity of
conversation, velocity of talk? >> yeah. the characters are speaking in my voice. but the... there are certainly... the guy you see in the movie you would certainly recognize as the guy we see on "60 minutes." the one big difference is that the guy we're seeing on "60 minutes" is now 26 years old. whereas our our mark zuckerberg in the movie is 19, a sophomore at harvard. >> rose: and considerably more sophisticated. >> yeah. and we wanted to get that. in these deposition room scene which is take place several years after most of the action in the movie, there is a more sophisticated slightly more grounded guy who's been through fire and is... he also in those scenes he's the underdog. he's... he has to defend himself against this white shoe law firm and all these accusers and he's
got to do it without his head flying off. >> rose: here is a clip from the "60 minutes" profile of mark zuckerberg. >> he and his two roommates created an online version of the harvard student directory where kids could message each other. they called it the facebook and launched it from their dorm room. within four months, they had expanded to 40 colleges and over the summer, moved to palo alto. but mark had done code writing for some upper classmen with a similar idea and they have filed a lawsuit. three harvard students are suing you claiming that you stole their idea forñi facebook. >> well, i mean, we knew that we didn't steal any ideas or code so we're just kind of waiting until that comes out in court. >> in the lawsuit, they claim that you were duplicitous. are you worried about it? >> no. i don't really spend a whole lot of my time worrying about that. we have lawyers at the company who deal with that stuff and it's not a huge concern. >> rose: and here's a clip of
mark zuckerberg as played by jesse eisenberg in the film "the social network." a scene having to do with the deposition. >> is that a question? >> in the 16th e-mail you raise concerns about the site's functionality. were you leading them on for six weeks? >> no: >> then why didn't you raise any of these concerns before. >> it's raining. >> i'm sorry? >> it just started raining. >> mr. zuckerberg, do i have your full attention? >> no. >> do you think i deserve it? >> what? >> do you think i deserve your full attention? >> i had to swear an oath before i began this deposition and i don't want to perjure myself so i have a legal obligation to say no. >> okay. you don't think i deserve your attention >> i think if your clients want to sit on my shoulders and call themselves tall they have a right to give it a try but there's no requirement i enjoy sitting here listening to people lie. you have part of my intention, you have the minimum amount. the rest of my astengs back at the offices of facebook where my
colleagues and i are doing things that no one in this room-- including and especially your clients-- are intellectually or creatively capableover doing. did i adequately answer your continue sending question. >> rose: "the movie facebook doesn't want you to see. is the social network fair?" start arguing now. is this fair to zuckerberg and facebook? >> you never want to present a character in a movie that you don't empathize. it was never... it's not character assassination. we were... we had a guy who from certain perspectives he was a judas and he had betrayed his friend and obviously that's a specific p.o.v. you know, supreme seen the movie who know some of these part abouts and they have said, you know, alternately how did jesse eisenberg capture mark zucker sfwherg and coming out of the same screening you'll hear
people say we didn't lay a glove on him. so it's a tricky thing. i always try to make sure that, you know, it's not my intention to present an argument where i've already drawn my conclusion. i like the fact there were four people at a table who ought thought they were right and i think that makes the most interesting drama and argument. >> and i think if i were mark on facebook i would want the story told from only my perspective. but this is a story told from mark as well as the people accusing him. i do think that it's fair. i think that like david said you can't create a movie character that you don't empathize. i don't think any of us... >> rose: that's true whether it's the writer or director. >> or the actor for that matter. >> rose: if you're not fascinated and empathize with your character... >> yes.
and i understand... i don't think any of us would want a movie made about the things we did when we were 19 years old. but this is a movie... he's a fascinating guy who in the end... >> rose: what makes him fascinating to you as a writer? >> i think that he's got his nose pressed up against the window of social life at college and then the world. >> rose: it's like when he was in college he was a bit socially inseptember in >> more than a bit. he was a socially awkward guy. i can identify with that, too. he's most comfortable sitting 18 inches away from a computer screen. >> rose: and you're most comfortable until a room with the door shut at a computer? >> i would like 24 inches away from the computer. (laughter) sure, i would like people to think that i'm as quick and deliver and charming as the characters that i write and i would be happy just writing what i write, slipping it under the
door and having somebody slip a meal back under the door in exchange. that's what mark ended up creating. he created a world where you can reinvent yourself. >> rose: roll tape. this is the introduction of one other character, eduardo, played by andrew garfield when they launch the site because he plays a significant role later. here it is. >> relationship status. interested this is what drives life in college. are you having sex or aren't you. it's why people take certain classes and sit where they sit and do what they do. >> that's what the facebook is going to be about. people will log on because after all the cake and watermelon, there's a chance they're going to get laid, meet a girl. >> yes. >> that's s really good. >> and that was it? >> what do you mean? >> it's ready. >> right now? >> yeah. >> rose: so who was that character played by andrew garfield? >> that was add war doe saverin. he put up the thousand dollars to put up what was at that point called the facebook and he's his
college buddy and confidante and his best friend. >> rose: his best friend, it's possible, in fact, that he may have been his only friend at that moment. and genuinely cares for mark. and is... tries to act as mark's conscience which is a problem for justin timberlake's character. >> rose: sean parker. >> sean parker, the founder of napster. he comes into the movie about an hour in and in order for sean to pursue his own agenda needs mark to get rid of eduardo. >> rose: tell me about sean parker? and the casting. >> well, we have... you know, we have the version of sean parker in the movie who needed to be... he's described in the prose as being like frank sinatra, he walks into this restaurant and all eyes are on him and he's able to navigate these waters so
gracefully. >> rose: distin will do just fine. (laughs) >> that was the thing. there are many number of ways justin timberlake being in your movie can upset the apple cart in that we're trying to build this ensemble and you bring in a guy who is so well known in this other realm and it can throw off the balance of trying to make all these separate but equal puzzle pieces. and, you know, in the end we put him through hell. he did four or five screen tests for it. but i needed somebody jesse could look across a restaurant and see and go "that's how you do it. that's how you walk into a restaurant. that's how you handle being the center of attention" and you can tell an actor... >> rose: charisma. >> or how you abuse it and how you ignore it and it flows from you and two you. i... to you. and i needed a 20-something who
could understand what it is to put people together and profit from it. what's the largest literary license you took here? >> i didn't create fictional characters? i changed some names. there are three characters whose names i changed and one of those three is an off screen character. in the other two cases it just wasn't necessary to embarrass this person further. the literary licenses that i took are exactly same as literary license taken by anyone writing non-fiction which is to say that people don't speak in dialogue so you have to write that for them. and life doesn't play itself out in scenes. it doesn't have the dramatic structure that you need for a movie. nothing was invented for the movie... for the sake of sensationalizing it or hollywoodizing it. but i did the same thing that when peter morgan writes "the queen" he wasn't in queen elizabeth's bedroom when she's talking to her husband about their daughter-in-law. >> rose: was it hard to
visualize? >> i don't think in those terms. i think of... maybe not visualization as much as it is... i think of my job as to create an environment wherein somebody can work those things out. i don't think of it as so much about camera placement after you've done a rehearsal and decide what people are going to do and you go where's the snoplt where do we have to be? are we over the shoulder? are we including a piece of the person? how subjective is it? and for me, there's a lot of stuff you go, my god, there's going to be so much typing in this movie. but there's so many moments where people are riffing and the excitement is in seeing the reaction of the person who's listening. there's a club scene. >> rose: take a look at this. this is mark and sean talking about facebook at the nightclub?
>> yeah talking whereabout it can go. what it can be in. >> rose: and sean is seducing mark. you'll see. >> i read your blog. >> oh, that was perfect. >> you know what i started napster? the girl i loved in high school was with the co-captain of the varsity lacrosse team and i wanted to take her from him. so i desided to come up with the next big thing. >> i didn't know that. >> napster wasn't a failure. i changed the music industry for better and for always. it may not have been good business, but it pissed a lot of people off! and isn't that what your face mash was about? they're scared of me, pal, and they're gonna be scared of you. they want to say "good idea, kid grown-ups will take it from here." but not this time. this is our time. this time you're gonna hand them a business card that says "i'm c.e.o., bitch." >> initially the first draft of the script was much more of this
idea of being able to get revenge or be able to show the woman who had scoffed at you how what you could become and replaced a lot of those ideas as soon as we had justin and we're tailoring it to justin to this idea of the victoria's secret, the guy who invented victoria's secret and talking specifically about this store that went from ing a $40,000 loan from in laws to a $5 million thing the guy cashed out and sold to somebody else who went on to make a half billion dollar industry out of it and the guy who originally invented it jumped off the golden gate bridge. so that's what sean is talking about and he's saying it's not only whether or not you have a great idea but there's a moment in time where this can be something huge and don't miss it. >> rose: congratulations to both of you. >> thank you very much. thanks for having us.
captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org words alone aren't enough. our job is to listen and find ways to help workers who lost their jobs to the spill. i'm iris cross. we'll keep restoring the jobs, tourist beaches, and businesses impacted by the spill. we've paid over $400 million in claims and set up a $20 billion independently-run claims fund.